Looks like destroying UNESCO heritage sites is more of a war crime

[malaise]

than illegally invading and occupying a country and killing over one million of its citizens.

Jackass say the world is not level.

[malthaussen]

1. You know how it is. Property is the most sacred of all things.

One reason (among many) the biker shootout didn't attract as much attention as the Baltimore or Ferguson riots was because no property was harmed.

-- Mal

[morningfog]

3. Heritage is property.

[DanTex]

5. Apparently you respect us enough to come here and troll with your anti-gay bigotry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026710122#post12

[DanTex]

8. Which makes sense: bigots aren't know to have the best vocabularies.

Enjoy your stay.

[DanTex]

10. Umm, no, that's not what "bigotry" means.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

For example, the way you feel about gay people.

[DanTex]

13. No it's not. And, yes, I do think bigoted people like you should be able to get married.

[DanTex]

18. LOL. No, it doesn't work that way.

I'm tolerant, in the sense that I support the rights of bigots to free speech. But calling bigots what they are is not bigotry.

[CreekDog]

12. picking fights and posting things against same sex marriage?

this place isn't for you.

why can't you play by the rules? there are places that welcome your posts against gays, this isn't one of them.

[CreekDog]

19. Don't change the subject, it's not allowed to join here and agitate against same sex marriage

Obviously you've been here before so you know that (and I say that because despite supposedly being here for just a day, you just told seabeyond that she *always* posts a certain way).

[DanTex]

21. It's actually compulsory for all decent human beings, not just Democrats.

[jwirr]

54. Dan - who do we thank for the auto-deletes for bigots like this?

[NuclearDem]

23. ...

[malaise]

15. Good post

[cali]

24. Palmyra is merely property the way the Parthenon is

or the way that the Sistine Chapel is or the Mona Lisa or the Lascaux Cave with its paleolitic paintings, or the Terracotta Army of China.

These are so much more than merely property. They're our link to the past, to understanding where we come. I can't believe anyone would call great art and architecture, merely property. When we lose these works, we efeat ourselves in a very real way.

[blackspade]

27. Bingo.

[malthaussen]

28. I'll echo Morningfog on this...

Heritage is property. And then I'll throw in a soupcon of Proudhon: property is impossible.

As with anything else in the world, the value of a thing is what it will bring. Or, put another way, the value of a thing is what we choose it to be. If I read Malaise correctly, he is marvelling that the value we assign to "heritage," an intangible, is more than we assign to a child with its legs blown off. I think enough examples can be drawn from history to support that contention to warrant some thought. Much the same may be said about "property" to which is assigned no cultural baggage, or we wouldn't have fought a civil war over slavery just a short historical time ago. Whatever your pesonal thoughts on the subject, do you think our society attaches more importance to life or property? You say, "it doesn't have to be either/or," yet our laws have and do still enshrine property over life.

-- Mal

[NuclearDem]

31. Heritage is not property.

Language, music, dance, and history are not property, but are heritage. Physical locations and artifacts are both property and heritage.

The "it's just property" line reduces destruction of Giza, the Parthenon, Angkor Wat, and the Terra Cotta Army to the level of stomping on an iPhone.

[malthaussen]

33. Considering that in a few years, archaeologically speaking...

... the iPhone will be assigned equal cultural value to Angkor Wat, I'd have to agree with you.

I wonder, a little, if the outrage over destruction of archaeological sites by barbarians isn't just a reflection of outrage over the de facto statement that they piss on our heritage.

-- Mal

[NuclearDem]

34. Again, wow.

I'm utterly dumbfounded. That is one of the most appallingly ignorant things I've read here.

[malthaussen]

36. Must not read many posts, then. n/t

[NuclearDem]

37. Outside of the blatantly bigoted, of course.

Though really, nothing quite as bigoted as reducing entire cultures' greatest works to the level of cheap mass produced crap.

[malthaussen]

39. Boy, you really need to read Populuxe. n/t

[NuclearDem]

44. Boy, you really need to stop justifying the destruction of mankind's heritage.

[cali]

32. I think it's comparing apples and elephants

and frankly I think it's a picture perfect illustration of sophomoric. It's like when I was 15 and argued that money isn't real.

It goes far beyond "the values of a thing is what we choose it to be".

I can't answer really answer your question because I don't agree that art and artifacts of our distant past are merely property, but I will rely on the maxim: It's complicated how our society views the relative value of property and life. It's contradictory. Society is made up of lots of pieces. Strictly speaking of the U.S., it's clear to me that with so much corporate control and influence, the value of property is ascendant. However, in the history of the world, the value of life is seen as more and more important- we don't hang people for theft anymore, for instance. Lots of conflicting threads in the picture.

But again, I think it's absurd and simplistic to an extreme point to call the world's greatest art and historical artifacts, merely property.

[malthaussen]

38. Interestingly enough...

... a lot of the property crimes were made capital in the 18th century in the UK, solely so they could be commuted to life transportation and create indentured colonists for the sugar islands, Australia, and parts of the Americas (Georgia started out as a penal colony).

It is certainly arguable that, legally at least, more respect for life is demonstrated by the decapitalization of so many offenses, although I wonder sometimes if (in the US, at any rate) it isn't more reflective of another sort of capitalization. The prison industry is big bucks, after all. But in any event, we clearly are okay as a society with mass slaughter and destruction, as long as we are the ones doing it. And plenty of RW nuts would happily destroy any Muslim historical site they could, along with Korans and, er, Muslims. So how much we are moving in a good direction remains problematic, especially when so much money is wrapped up in the death industries.

In the mean time, you may ponder this question if you will: supposing the Mona Lisa were inconvertably proved to be a forgery, painted by a complete unknown. What would be its value then?

-- Mal

[NuclearDem]

42. Forgery?

You seem to think the Mona Lisa's value is that it came from Da Vinci, and not that it was a magnificent work in its own right.

You may have more of an argument when it comes to written works--if Shakespeare didn't write some plays attributed to him--but that's still irrelevant because the value is on the achievement of the work, not necessarily the creator.

[malthaussen]

43. I don't know that monetarily, you are right.

We do agree that the true value is in the achievement. I think it is quite interesting that labels still nevertheless seem to matter quite a bit, at least when it comes to market price.

-- Mal

[NuclearDem]

25. Wow. Wow.

WOW.

Fuck humanity's cultural heritage, amiright?

[cali]

7. The destruction of the these places is a tragedy. I'm not sure why

it has to either/or or measured one against the other- and it's all connected in any case. If the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, none of this would be happening.

[malaise]

17. Have you heard a single UN agency mention war crimes for all those

dead Iraqis?

That's the reason for this post.
I believe in our planet's treasures but the right to life tops all of them.

[NuclearDem]

20. OFFS

[blackspade]

26. They are both horrid crimes.

It's not a zero sum thing in this case.

The destruction of archaeological sites erases our collective human history.
That includes the lives of those that once inhabited them.
Erasing them from history is no different from erasing the war dead that are heaped at the feet of the neocons from our more recent history.

[malthaussen]

29. I'll differ from you

Those who lived "in history" live in memory, only. Memory is not rooted in things, although we may use things to anchor it. IS may attempt to "erase from history" those who have gone before, but they only succeed if we let them. Destruction of great art, great architecture may indeed be a crime against aesthetics and intended as a crime against a culture that is despised, but it is hardly equivilent, IMO, to the destruction of human life in which we happily engage on a daily basis. In fact, I'd submit that the reason there is such shock over the destruction of archaelogical treasures is because we are so inured to the destruction of people we don't even worry about it: a fish is not aware of the water, after all. But the ancient sites are rare enough (largely because we already destroyed so many of them), that their loss is exceptional and thus considered worthy of notice.

-- Mal

[malaise]

30. Very well said n/t

[closeupready]

35. Agreed. Where were all these voices when LIVES were threatened?

Materialism and the pursuit of worldly wealth has now, on some levels, superseded the protection of life and liberty of all people.

Ergo, it's a headline when Kim Kardashian throws her sex in our faces.

But when war crimes are being committed, who cares as long as we are getting rich.

K&R

On edit, maybe a better way to put it is like this:

When carved rocks are being turned to dust, it's a "war crime".

When the military drops bombs on wedding parties, it's "oops, sorry".

[malaise]

40. I do love the carved rocks but life is way more important

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

and no one warns them about war crimes as they slaughter innocent people.

They kicked out Kofi for daring to disagree with their illegal war.
Guess the 'tourist industry' is worth more than the lives of millions in the Middle East.

[NuclearDem]

45. Palmyra is not "carved rocks."

Anymore than a human is a carbon fluid sack gas bag.

I don't know what the hell compels you to make this a zero sum game. Both are tragedies.

Though I assume after this thread, I can expect you to not raise a stink over Walmart paving over Native burial sites, right?

[BainsBane]

41. Destroying all those antiquities is a tragedy

There is no need to diminish it.

[malaise]

46. They have long diminished the one million dead Iraqis

Whatever!

[BainsBane]

49. "Whatever"

It is the history of human civilization. "Whatever." You go on pretending it's either antiquities or life when the fact is human death and the destruction of antiquities go hand in hand. Following the Invasion of Iraq, the museums there were looted and destroyed. Now ISIS is doing the same, just as they are killing many thousands of people. The only place this exists as an either or proposition is in this thread. It is unfortunate you have decided art, classics, and history are so meaningless, but then that ethos is part of the modern world where people have no value for education or the history of what preceded them.

[malaise]

53. Don't get me started on Western looting

please. I'm waiting to see which loot ends up in Western museums because I'm pretty sure that just like the British and European imperialists, lots of stuff recently stolen from the ME is in the hands of the Western 1%.

[NuclearDem]

55. There it is.

West loots cultural treasures, that's bad.

ISIS threatens to blow up cultural treasures, "whatever."

So fucking transparent.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. But you have already said 'whatever' to looting and destruction of world heritage sites.

When I read this OP the first thing I thought was that you would not be so casually dismissive of the sacking done during the invasion of Iraq and here you are. Situational ethics.

[malthaussen]

47. I'm curious, BB

How would you respond if you were accused of diminshing the deaths of people?

-- Mal

[BainsBane]

48. Who decided it was either/or

Following the invasion of Iraq, the museums there were looted and antiquities destroyed too. ISIS also has killed many thousands. One does not happen without the other, and there is no reason to pretend they do, or that it is an either or situation.

[malthaussen]

50. As nearly as I can tell, you.

The OP wonders why the destruction of historical sites is considered criminal, while the deaths of people is not. Nowhere does it suggest or imply that the destruction of historical sites is trivial, only that it is a strange perspective that puts the sites before the lives lost.

-- Mal

[BainsBane]

52. I would say

the response "whatever" certainly does. The OP chose to minimize it. I would submit that destroying a people's history is in fact something that destroys them, and it is ALWAYS accompanied by human death. It is in fact an essential step in the annihilation of a people, which is precisely what ISIS seeks to do.

Where is this perspective that puts the the loss of antiquities before human life? The only place I have seen the two posited against each other is in this thread. Minimizing one is to minimize the other. People do not exist purely as material creatures. Culture, history, and art are central to the life of a people, which is why conquest has always been accompanied by destruction of material culture. It strikes at the soul of a community. The Spanish knew that when they conquered the Aztec empire, which is why they leveled their cities and built Catholic Churches where Nahua religious sites had once been.

[malthaussen]

57. I think the OP was responding to a news item

... one which called IS "war criminals" for sacking Palmyra, or possibly the one where the local professor was lamenting the "end of civilization," not because children were dying, but because archaeological sites were being destroyed. Which, given that the professor has lived in an area where school buses full of children being blown up has been a common occurence since he was born, is irony if you like.

Conquerors have indeed made a practice of destroying the material culture of conquered peoples, as well as attempting to eradicate the rest of their culture, as in dance, traditions, language, etc. It is despite these attempts, however, in many cases, that we know anything of conquered peoples. Ultimately, the cultural heritage remains in what is passed down, what is remembered. Artifacts may facilitate this, but when artifacts are destroyed, memory remains. Which, I suppose, is also true of people, when you get right down to it.

-- Mal

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. It is not either or.

The destruction of world heritage sites is about our collective history as humans. For somebody who is quite anti colonialists I am shocked you cannot make the connection to colonial and imperial policies.

If you destroy the past you can rewrite it. Orwell was brilliant. A re-reading of 1984 is in order for you. Killing millions and destroying the past are equal tragedies

[pampango]

58. Wish they prosecuted them all. But I will take imperfect prosecution of war criminals over

non-prosecution of all war criminals. Slaughterers of civilians have been prosecuted as war criminals. That's a good thing. Lots of others have not. That's a terrible thing. Particularly when one was the president of the most militarily powerful country in the world. "Exceptional" rules for "exceptional" countries apparently. Submitting ourselves to the same rules as everyone else in the world seems to be something outside of the American experience.